Are
we to believe that Randy Barnett, law professor, sitting in his
ivory tower and under no pressure, is unable to distinguish between situations
where a State does have a “literal power” to nullify an unconstitutional
act of the federal government [when it orders The State or The
People to do -or not do - something]; and when The State does
not have a “literal power” to nullify the act [because,
as with the alien & sedition acts, it does not dictate something The
States or The People can refuse to obey]?

False
Assertion 3:

That
the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and
what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever
the supreme Court says.

The
federal government has become a tyranny which acts without constitutional
authority.

This
came about because we were lured away from The Founding Principle that
the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and were
seduced into believing government should provide for our needs and protect
us from the challenges of Life.

Progressives
of the early 1900s[9]transformed the federal
government into the Frankensteinian monster
it is today. They imposed the regulatory welfare state where the federal
government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources,
and benefits some people [e.g., welfare parasites, labor unions &
obama donors] at the expense of others.

The
Progressives claimed the power to determine what is in the “public
interest” and have the federal government implement their
notions of what advances the “public interest.”

Under
the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the
enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; but would follow the
“will of the people” as expressed by their representatives
in the federal government. In other words, the Progressives gave
the federal government a blank check to fill out anyway they want.
People
in the federal government now claim power to do whatever they want to
us.

The
federal government imposed by the Progressives is evil:

•
In order to provide benefits to some; the federal government violates
the God-given property rights of others. The federal
government robs Peter to pay Paul.• In order to protect us from the challenges
of life (including made up problems such as “global warming”
and “lack of medical insurance”), the federal government
violates everyone’s God-given rights to Liberty.

And
thus today, the federal government:

•
Usurps powers not delegated to it in the Constitution. Most of what it
does is unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers delegated
in our Constitution.• Has become an instrument of oppression, injustice,
and immorality.• Has taken away most of our God given
rights, and is now conniving to take away our God given
right to self-defense.

Now
you know how the federal government was transformed from
being the securer of our God given rights to a tyranny which
oppresses some of the people for the benefit of others; and takes everyone’s
Liberty away – except for those in the ruling class.

So!
What do We do? What can We do?

The
nullification deniers insist We must obey whatever Congress and the President
dictate unless five (5) judges on the supreme Court say We don’t
have to. They say the supreme Court is the final authority on what is
constitutional and what is not.

But
think: Who created the federal government?

We did!
It is our “creature.” Is the “creature”
to dictate to the “creator”?

The
nullification deniers say, “Yes!” They say that:

•
Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal
government] is “supreme”; and• Every executive order issued by the President
[the Executive Branch of the federal government] is
binding; and• The States and The People must obey, unless
and until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial
Branch of the federal government] say the law or executive
order is unconstitutional.

In
other words, only the federal government may question the federal government.

Under
their vision, the federal government WE created with the Constitution
is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers WE delegated
to it; and the opinion of five (5) judges, not the Constitution, is the
sole measure of its powers.

Jarrett
Stepman regurgitates the statist lie that “the ultimate decision
maker in terms of America’s political system is the Supreme Court.”

Randy
Barnett, law professor, chants the statist refrain, “…What
has the Supreme Court said and meant? and … Are there now five justices
to sustain the claim?”

Barnett
selects two paragraphs from Madison’s Report on the Virginia
Resolutions (1799-1800), (which address the alien & sedition
acts), and claims they show Madison “expressly denies, or at minimum
equivocates about whether, there is a literal power of nullification in
states.”

Well,
We saw above that States couldn’t nullify the alien & sedition
acts because they purported to grant dictatorial powers to the President;
and did not require The States or The People to do - or not do - something.

And
the two paragraphs Barnett claims are so “telling” as to The
States’ lack of “literal power” to nullify anything,
and as to the ultimate authority of the Judicial Branch, appear under
Madison’s discussion of the last two Resolutions where Virginia
had asked other States to join the protest. Madison merely says the citizens
and legislature of Virginia have the right to communicate with other States;
and in so doing, they are not exercising a judicial function.

Now!
Note Well: Madison actually says,
in the same Report Barnett cites, that it is “a
plain principle, founded in common sense” that The
States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated
our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution,
Madison says:

“It
appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common
sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature
of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior
to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the
rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been
pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States
was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign
capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority
of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation.
The States then being the parties to the constitutional
compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that
there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last
resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently
that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort,
such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”
[emphasis mine]

A bit
further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps
power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby
preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there
would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights
of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

“…If
the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the
Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even
so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby
to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety
of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief
from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified
or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as
a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence
itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit
further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority
is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last
resort.”

Madison
explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution
by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that
usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the
Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to
that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison
also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other
two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution,
have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as
they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

“…the
judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers
beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate
right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact
has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated
authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as
by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison
goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain
their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the
authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other
Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the
Judicial Branch does not have final say as

“…to
the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which
the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts.
On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would
annul the authority delegating it;[10]
and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers,
might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any
rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted
to preserve.”

Shame
on you nullification deniers who misrepresent what Madison said, or ignorantly
insist that Madison said the Judicial Branch is the Final Authority!

False
Assertion 4:

That
James Madison opposed Nullification by States of Unconstitutional Acts
of the Federal Government.

Matthew
Spalding (Heritage Foundation) and David
Barton (Wallbuilders) cite South Carolina’s Nullification Crisis
of 1832 as “proof” that James Madison “vehemently opposed”
nullification.

What
Spalding and Barton say is not true. Did they read what Madison
wrote on S. Carolina’s doctrine of nullification? Are they so lacking
in critical thinking skills that they can’t make the distinction
between the nullification doctrine Madison (and Jefferson & Hamilton)
embraced, and the peculiar doctrine of nullification advanced by S. Carolina?

And
we saw above that the condition which must be present before nullification
is proper, is that the act of the federal government must be unconstitutional.

Now,
let’s look at The Tariff Act of 1828 and the S. Carolina Nullification
Crisis:

South
Carolina was an agricultural state. During the 1820’s, they bought
manufactured goods from England. England bought cotton produced by S.
Carolina and other Southern States.

However,
“infant industries” in the Northeast were producing some of
the same manufactured goods as England; but they were more expensive than
the English imports. So they couldn’t compete with the cheaper imports.

So!
In 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the English imports. The Southern
States called this the “tariff of abominations,” because the
tariff made the English goods too expensive to buy; and since the Southern
States stopped buying English goods, the English stopped buying Southern
cotton. The Southern States had to pay more for manufactured goods, they
lost the major buyer of their cotton; and their economy was weakened.

Now!
Note Well: Our Constitution delegates specific authority to Congress
to impose tariffs on imports, and the tariff must be the same in each
State (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1).

So!
Can you, dear Reader, see something which Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., and
David Barton are unable to see? South Carolina wanted to nullify
a constitutional law! Of course, Madison opposed S. Carolina’s
peculiar doctrine of nullification! Madison (and Jefferson &
Hamilton) always said the act nullified must be unconstitutional!

In his
Notes
on Nullification (1834), [12]Madison addressed
S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine. He said that in the Report
of a special committee of the House of Representatives of South Carolina
in 1828, a doctrine of nullification was set forth which asserted
that:

•
A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify
any federal law; and• The nullification is presumed valid, and is to
remain in force, unless ¾ of the States, in a Convention, say the
nullification isn’t valid.

What
Madison opposed was the particular doctrine of nullification
set forth by S. Carolina; and what Madison actually said about the S.
Carolina doctrine is this:

•
The federal government has delegated authority to impose import tariffs;• The Constitution requires that all import tariffs
be uniform throughout the United States;• States can’t nullify tariffs which are
authorized by the Constitution;• ¼ of the States don’t have the right
to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated
to the federal government;• Nullification is not a “constitutional
right”;

And
near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted with approval Thomas
Jefferson’s statement:

“…but,
where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification
of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right
in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of
their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their
limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute
and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for
them…”

Madison
then says:

“Thus
the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right,
which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.”
[emphasis mine]

Do you
see? Madison is saying that:

•
S. Carolina couldn’t nullify the Tariff Act of 1828 because the
Act was constitutional.• Nullification is a “natural right”-
it is not a “constitutional” right. Rights don’t
come from the Constitution.•All agree that when
the federal government acts outside of the Constitution, nullification
by the States is the proper remedy.

Application
Today

When
WE THE PEOPLE ratified our Constitution, and thereby created
the federal government, WE did not delegate to our “creature”
power to control our medical care, restrict guns and ammunition, dictate
what is done in the public schools, dictate how we use our lands, and
all the thousands of things they do WE never gave them authority in our
Constitution to do.

Accordingly,
each State has a natural right to nullify these unconstitutional
dictates within its borders. These dictates are outside the compact The
Sovereign States made with each other –WE never gave our
“creature” power over these objects.

As
Jefferson and Madison said, without Nullification, The States and The
People would be under the absolute and unlimited control of the federal
government.

And
that, dear Reader, is where these nullification deniers, with
their false assertions and shameful misrepresentations,
would put you.

To sum
this up:

•
Nullification is a natural right of self-defense. • Rights don’t come from the Constitution.
Like all Rights, the right of self-defense comes from God
(The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).• Nullification is a reserved power within the
meaning of the 10th Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit
States from nullifying, and We reserved the power to do it.• God requires us to disobey
civil authorities when they violate God’s Law. That’s why
the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence says we have the duty
to overthrow tyrannical government. See: The
Biblical Foundation of our Constitution.•Nullification is required by Oath of
Office: Article VI, cl. 3 requires all State officers and judges
to “support” the federal Constitution. Therefore, when the
federal government violates the Constitution, the States must
smack them down.

Subscribe
to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter
Your E-Mail Address:

Conclusion

Our
Founders and Framers were a different People than we of today. They were
manly men who knew statecraft & political philosophy and
could think. But our “experts” of today have been indoctrinated
with statism and can’t think. They just repeat what they
hear. We need them to man up, throw off the indoctrination, learn our
Founding Documents including The Federalist Papers, get a Logic Book,
and stop disseminating misinformation! We need them to repudiate cowardice
as the proper response to the evil which is overtaking our Land. Man
up, People!

“…every
act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission
under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.
To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater
than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives
of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men
acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid.” [emphasis mine]

11.
The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional; but benefited the Northeast
at the expense of the South. It thus violated our Founding Principle
that governments exist to secure the rights God gave us. God
never gave us the right to be free of competition in business! Since the
tariff was constitutional, but unjust, the remedy was to get Congress
to fix it.12.
Madison’s Notes
on Nullification (1834) are long & rambling. Copy to Word, enlarge
the type, & color-code to sort out the strands of arguments. Keep
in mind that what Madison is addressing is S. Carolina’s peculiar
doctrine where they wanted to nullify a constitutional tariff!

Publius Huldah
is a retired attorney who now lives in Tennessee. Before getting a
law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she specialized in
political philosophy and epistemology (theories of knowledge). She
now writes extensively on the U.S. Constitution, using the Federalist
Papers to prove its original meaning and intent. She also shows how
federal judges and politicians have ignored Our Constitution and replaced
it with their personal opinions and beliefs.h

A State “interposes”
when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the
State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition
takes various forms, depending on the circumstances.